Cassidycurlseportfolio.files.wordpress.com



Why does America love Drones? Bar Politics Although used by President Bush in the beginning years of Iraq, President Obama has made the use of unmanned aircraft a staple of his counterterrorism program. According to the Washington Post, a report from 2012 showed that 83% of Americans approve of the Obama Administrations use of drones against suspected overseas terrorists. Of those numbers, 59% strongly approve. The issue is extremely bipartisan; the majority of both democrats and republicans alike support the practice. But why? The primary reason is because for the public, drone strikes reduce the threat of terrorism while eliminating the potential loss of American lives. And according to this simple and seemingly obvious argument, why not then? Arguments against say that drone strikes are ineffective in terms of citizen-to-militant kills. They also say that drone strikes serve as a recruitment tool for future terrorists, violate state sovereignty, human rights, and international law, and because U.S. soldiers lives aren’t risked, are placed low on the radar of US public attention. The Breakdown Argument 1: Drones are cheap and effectiveDrones mean counterterrorism measures may not involve “boots on the ground”. The cost is minimal compared to military costs of training, organizing, and supporting troops in the area. Human costs are greatly lowered because drones are unmanned aircrafts flown by individuals using satellite imagery who specialize in intelligence. Drone strikes are largely effective in eliminating suspected terrorists because they are virtually undetectable at the altitudes they fly. In order to deter identification by drones, al Qaeda organizers have virtually cut off all communications, devastating the organization. Drones may result in civilian casualties, but these casualties are considerably less than other counterterrorism measures. According to an independent reporting effort, conducted by the Associated Press, Drones “are killing far fewer civilians than many in [Pakistan] are led to believe.”Argument 2: Drones aren’t solving anything Drones are used in an undefined war on terror, the results meaning much higher citizen casualties than militant casualties. Because of political rhetoric, these numbers are even more inflated. The US government’s definition of a militant compared to a citizen is vague; often a man of military age may be automatically classified as a suspected terrorist. Drones are psychologically damaging to the people in areas where they are used. Citizens in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia are outraged by their use, often with drone strikes having killed friends and family. The issue of blowback is a future reaction we have to expect, as drone strikes further damage the reputation of the United States and are used as a recruitment tool by terrorist organizations. Because drone strikes do not risk American lives, Americans are much less likely to educate themselves on the ramifications of their use. Drones may seem to solve the problem, but at the most it is only temporary. In the mean time, the United States is fostering anger and resentment from the rest of the world. In a briefing on drones, a boy told Congress: “I no longer love blue skies. In fact, I now prefer grey skies. The drones do not fly when the skies are grey”Whether or not you think that drones are the future of warfare, topics like these (with implications fundamental to the future of American foreign policy) are important for discussion and debate at a national, public level. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download